Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV07271, Date: 2024-01-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07271    Hearing Date: January 2, 2024    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. 

The opposing party’s alternative request for a continuance of trial is also GRANTED.

Background

Plaintiffs Adalberto Ramirez, Fernando Santana Velazco and Mark Anthony Velasquez filed their complaint on February 24, 2021, against Juan Carlos Tejeda, Braxton R, LLC, and Does 1 to 50 for the cause of action of Negligence based on an auto incident.

On December 7, 2023, Plaintiffs Adalberto Ramirez and Fernando Santana Velazco (“Plaintiffs”) filed this motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Defendants Juan Carlos Tejeda and Braxton R, LLC (“Defendants”) filed their opposition on December 18, 2023. Plaintiffs have not filed a reply.

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Tejeda Transportation, LLC as Doe 1.

Trial is currently set for February 6, 2024.

Legal Standard

CCP § 473(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:  “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.  The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.” 

“This discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.)  Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.  The court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.  (See California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281, overruled on other grounds by Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390.)

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading shall (1) include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) state what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located. 

Under CRC Rule 3.1324(b), a separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. 

Even if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, a long, unwarranted and unexcused delay in presenting it may be a good reason for denial.  In most cases, the factors for timeliness are: (1) lack of diligence in discovering the facts or in offering the amendment after knowledge of them; and (2) the effect of the delay on the adverse party.  If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the judge has discretion to deny leave to amend.  (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery.  (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.)

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add Negligent Hiring and Retention, Negligent Entrustment and Negligence Per Se as causes of action. (Motion, 5:9-11.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendants will not be prejudiced as no depositions of Plaintiffs have been taken, no experts have been designated and not IMEs have been administered. (Id., 5:14-17.) Plaintiffs also wish to also add a Doe Defendant, an LLC owned by Defendant Tejeda. (Id., 5:21-22.) Plaintiffs attached a copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A.

Defendants argue that the First Amended Complaint was brought by only two out of the three Plaintiffs. (Opposition, 1:13-14.) Defendants do not provide support as to this being improper.  Defendants argue that the adding of the new Defendant is improper as it was not included on the Amended Complaint and no Doe Amendment has been filed. (Id., 4:9-11.)  Shortly after Defendants filed their opposition, however, Plaintiffs amended the Complaint to name Tejeda Transportation, LLC as Doe 1. (No court order was requested or required for this amendment.) 

Finally, Defendants request that if the motion is granted, the trial date and respective discovery dates be continued to afford more time to respond to the new causes of action. (Id., 8:14-15.) Further, Defendants add that the newly added Defendant may have different insurance and defenses from the current Defendant.

The Court has considered the evidence and argument offered by both sides and finds that there is good cause shown to allow the proposed amendment.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.  

The Court also finds that, given the current trial date, there is good cause shown to GRANT Defendants’ alternative request for a continuance of the trial date..

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs are given leave to file the proposed amended complaint, a copy of which is attached to the moving papers, within 10 days of notice of this ruling.

Defendants’ alternative request for a trial continuance is GRANTED.  The Court continues trial for approximately six months, to early August 2024.  The final status conference and all discovery cut-off deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.